Introduction
Mammalian bone tissue is known to contain one or more proteinaceous materials, presumably active during growth and natural bone healing, that can induce a developmental cascade of cellular events resulting in endochondral bone formation. The active factors have variously been referred to in the literature as bone morphogenetic or morphogenic proteins (BMPs), bone inductive proteins, bone growth or growth factors, osteogenic proteins, or osteoinductive proteins. These active factors are collectively referred to herein as osteoinductive factors.
It is well known that bone contains these osteoinductive factors. These osteoinductive factors are present within the compound structure of cortical bone and are present at very low concentrations, e.g., 0.003%. Osteoinductive factors direct the differentiation of pluripotential mesenchymal cells into osteoprogenitor cells that form osteoblasts. Based upon the work of Marshall Urist as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,294,753, issued Oct. 13, 1981, proper demineralization of cortical bone exposes the osteoinductive factors, rendering it osteoinductive, as discussed more fully below.
Overview of Bone Grafts
The rapid and effective repair of bone defects caused by injury, disease, wounds, or surgery is a goal of orthopaedic surgery. Toward this end, a number of compositions and materials have been used or proposed for use in the repair of bone defects. The biological, physical, and mechanical properties of the compositions and materials are among the major factors influencing their suitability and performance in various orthopaedic applications.
Autologous cancellous bone (“ACB”), also known as autograft or autogenous bone, long has been considered the gold standard for bone grafts. ACB is osteoinductive and nonimmunogenic, and, by definition, has all of the appropriate structural and functional characteristics appropriate for the particular recipient. Unfortunately, ACB is only available in a limited number of circumstances. Some individuals lack ACB of appropriate dimensions and quality for transplantation, and donor site pain and morbidity can pose serious problems for patients and their physicians.
Bone grafting applications are differentiated by the requirements of the skeletal site. Certain applications require a “structural graft” in which one role of the graft is to provide mechanical or structural support to the site. Such grafts contain a substantial portion of mineralized bone tissue to provide the strength needed for load-bearing. Examples of applications requiring a “structural graft” include intercalary grafts, spinal fusion, joint plateaus, joint fusions, large bone reconstructions, etc. Other applications require an “osteogenic graft” in which one role of the graft is to enhance or accelerate the growth of new bone tissue at the site. Such grafts contain a substantial portion of demineralized bone tissue to improve the osteoinductivity needed for growth of new bone tissue. Examples of applications requiring “osteogenic graft” include deficit filling, spinal fusions, joint fusions, etc. Grafts may also have other beneficial biological properties, such as, for example, serving as delivery vehicles for bioactive substances. Bioactive substances include physiologically or pharmacologically active substances that act locally or systemically in the host.
When mineralized bone is used in osteoimplants, it is primarily because of its inherent strength, i.e., its load-bearing ability at the recipient site. The biomechanical properties of osteoimplants upon implantation are determined by many factors, including the specific site from which the bone used to make the osteoimplant is taken; various physical characteristics of the donor tissue; and the method chosen to prepare, preserve, and store the bone prior to implantation, as well as the type of loading to which the graft is subjected.
Structural osteoimplants are conventionally made by processing, and then machining or otherwise shaping cortical bones collected for transplant purposes. Osteoimplants may comprise monolithic bone of an aggregate of particles. Further, osteoimplants may be substantially solid, flowable, or moldable. Cortical bone can be configured into a wide variety of configurations depending on the particular application for the structural osteoimplant. Structural osteoimplants are often provided with intricate geometries, e.g., series of steps; concave or convex surfaces; tapered surfaces; flat surfaces; surfaces for engaging corresponding surfaces of adjacent bone, tools, or implants, hex shaped recesses, threaded holes; serrations, etc.
One problem associated with many monolithic structural osteoimplants, particularly those comprising cortical bone, is that they are never fully incorporated by remodeling and replacement with host tissue. Since repair is a cellular-mediated process, dead (non-cellular, allograft or xenograft) bone is unable to repair itself. When the graft is penetrated by host cells and host tissue is formed, the graft is then capable of repair. It has been observed that fatigue damage is usually the result of a buildup of unrepaired damage in the tissue. Therefore, to the extent that the implant is incorporated and replaced by living host bone tissue, the body can then recognize and repair damage, thus eliminating failure by fatigue. In applications where the mechanical load-bearing requirements of the osteoimplant are challenging, e.g., intervertebral spinal implants for spinal fusion, lack of substantially complete replacement by host bone tissue may compromise the osteoimplant by subjecting it to repeated loading and cumulative unrepaired damage in the tissue (mechanical fatigue) within the implant material. Thus, it is desirable that the osteoimplant has the capacity to support load initially and be capable of gradually transferring this load to the host bone tissue as it remodels the implant.
Much effort has been invested in the identification and development of alternative bone graft materials. Urist published seminal articles on the theory of bone induction and a method for decalcifying bone, i.e., making demineralized bone matrix (DBM). Urist M. R., Bone Formation by Autoinduction, Science 1965; 150(698):893-9; Urist M. R. et al., The Bone Induction Principle, Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res. 53:243-283, 1967. DBM is an osteoinductive material in that it induces bone growth when implanted in an ectopic site of a rodent, owing to the osteoinductive factors contained within the DBM. It is now known that there are numerous osteoinductive factors, e.g., BMP2, BMP4, BMP6, BMP7, which are part of the transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) superfamily. BMP-2 has become the most important and widely studied of the BMP family of proteins. There are also other proteins present in DBM that are not osteoinductive alone but still contribute to bone growth, including fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), insulin-like growth factor-I and -II (IGF-I and IGF-II), platelet derived growth factor (PDGF), and transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-beta.1).
Accordingly, a known technique for promoting the process of incorporation of osteoimplants is demineralization of portions of, or the entire volume of, the implant. The process of demineralizing bone grafts is well known. In this regard see, Lewandrowski et al., J. Biomed Materials Res, 31, pp. 365 372 (1996); Lewandrowski et al., Calcified Tiss. Int., 61, pp. 294 297 (1997); Lewandrowski et al., J. Ortho. Res., 15, pp. 748 756 (1997), the contents of each of which is incorporated herein by reference.
DBM implants have been reported to be particularly useful (see, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,394,370, 4,440,750, 4,485,097, 4,678,470, and 4,743,259; Mulliken et al., Calcif Tissue Int. 33:71, 1981; Neigel et al., Opthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 12:108, 1996; Whiteman et al., J. Hand. Surg. 18B:487, 1993; Xiaobo et al., Clin. Orthop. 293:360, 1993, each of which is incorporated herein by reference). DBM typically is derived from cadavers. The bone is removed aseptically and treated to kill any infectious agents. The bone is particulated by milling or grinding, and then the mineral component is extracted by various methods, such as by soaking the bone in an acidic solution. The remaining matrix is malleable and can be further processed and/or formed and shaped for implantation into a particular site in the recipient. The demineralized bone particles or fibers can be formulated with biocompatible excipients to enhance surgical handling properties and conformability to the defect or surgery site. Demineralized bone prepared in this manner contains a variety of components including proteins, glycoproteins, growth factors, and proteoglycans. Following implantation, the presence of DBM induces cellular recruitment to the site of injury. The recruited cells may eventually differentiate into bone forming cells. Such recruitment of cells leads to an increase in the rate of wound healing and, therefore, to faster recovery for the patient.
Demineralization provides the osteoimplant, whether monolithic, aggregate, flowable, or moldable, with a degree of flexibility. However, removal of the mineral components of bone significantly reduces mechanical strength of bone tissue. See, Lewandrowski et al., Clinical Ortho. Rel. Res., 317, pp. 254 262 (1995). Thus, demineralization sacrifices some of the load-bearing capacity of cortical bone and as such may not be suitable for all osteoimplant designs.
While the collagen-based matrix of DBM is relatively stable, the osteoinductive factors within the DBM matrix are rapidly degraded. The osteogenic activity of the DBM may be significantly degraded within 24 hours after implantation, and in some instances the osteogenic activity may be inactivated within 6 hours. Therefore, the osteoinductive factors associated with the DBM are only available to recruit cells to the site of injury for a short time after transplantation. For much of the healing process, which may take weeks to months, the implanted material may provide little or no assistance in recruiting cells. Further, most DBM formulations are not load-bearing.
Extracting Proteins
The potential utility of osteoinductive factors has been recognized widely. It has been contemplated that the availability of osteoinductive factors could revolutionize orthopedic medicine and certain types of plastic surgery, dental, and various periodontal and craniofacial reconstructive procedures.
Urist's U.S. Pat. No. 4,294,753, herein incorporated by reference, was the first of many patents on a process for extracting BMP from DBM. At the time of the Urist '753 patent, BMP was referred to generally. It is now known that there are multiple forms of BMP. The Urist process became widely adopted, and though different users may use different chemical agents from those disclosed in the basic Urist process, the basic layout of the steps of the process remains widely used today as one of the main methods of extracting BMP from DBM. See, e.g., U.S. Pub 2003/0065392 (2003); U.S. Pub 2002/0197297 (2002). Urist reported that his basic process actually results in generally low yields of BMP per unit weight of DBM.
Implanting Extracted Proteins
Successful implantation of the osteoinductive factors for endochondral bone formation requires association of the proteins with a suitable carrier material capable of maintaining the proteins at an in vivo site of application. The carrier generally is biocompatible, in vivo biodegradable, and sufficiently porous to allow cell infiltration. Insoluble collagen particles that remain after guanidine extraction and delipidation of pulverized bone generally have been found effective in allogenic implants in some species. However, studies have shown that while osteoinductive proteins are useful cross species, the collagenous bone matrix generally used for inducing endochondral bone formation is species-specific. Sampath and Reddi, (1983) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 80: 6591-6594.
European Patent Application Serial No. 309,241, published Mar. 29, 1989, herein incorporated by reference, discloses a device for inducing endochondral bone formation comprising an osteogenic protein preparation, and a matrix carrier comprising 60-98% of either mineral component or bone collagen powder and 2-40% atelopeptide hypoimmunogenic collagen.
The use of pulverized exogenous bone growth material, e.g., derived from demineralized allogenic or xenogenic bone, in the surgical repair or reconstruction of defective or diseased bone in human or other mammalian/vertebrate species is known. See, in this regard, the disclosures of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,394,370, 4,440,750, 4,472,840, 4,485,097, 4,678,470, 4,743,259, 5,284,655, 5,290,558; Bolander et al., “The Use of Demineralized Bone Matrix in the Repair of Segmental Defects,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 68-A, No. 8, pp. 1264-1273; Glowacki et al, “Demineralized Bone Implants,” Symposium on Horizons in Plastic Surgery, Vol. 12, No. 2; pp. 233-241 (1985); Gepstein et al., “Bridging Large Defects in Bone by Demineralized Bone Matrix in the Form of a Powder,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 69-A, No. 7, pp. 984-991 (1987); Mellonig, “Decalcified Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft as an Implant Material In Human Periodontal Defects,” The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, pp. 41-45 (June 1984); Kaban et al., “Treatment of Jaw Defects with Demineralized Bone Implants,” Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, pp.623-626 (Jun. 6, 1989); and Todescan et al., “A Small Animal Model for Investigating Endosseous Dental Implants: Effect of Graft Materials on Healing of Endosseous, Porous-Surfaced Implants Placed in a Fresh Extraction Socket,” The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 217-223 (1987), all herein incorporated by reference.
A variety of approaches have been explored in an attempt to recruit progenitor cells or chondrocytes into an osteochondral or chondral defect. For example, penetration of subchondral bone has been performed in order to access mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in the bone marrow, which have the potential to differentiate into cartilage and bone. Steadman, et al., “Microfracture: Surgical Technique and Rehabilitation to Treat Chondral Defects,” Clin. Orthop., 391 S:362-369 (2001). In addition, some factors in the body are believed to aid in the repair of cartilage. For example, transforming growth factors beta (TGF-β) have the capacity to recruit progenitor cells into a chondral defect from the synovium or elsewhere when loaded in the defect. Hunziker, et al., “Repair of Partial Thickness Defects in Articular Cartilage: Cell Recruitment From the Synovial Membrane,” J Bone Joint Surg., 78-A:721-733 (1996). However, the application of growth factors to bone and cartilage implants has not resulted in the expected increase in osteoinductive or chondrogenic activity.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,132,110, herein incorporated by reference, describes an osteogenic composition prepared by a process including the steps of subjecting demineralized bone to an extraction medium to produce an insoluble extraction product and a soluble extraction product, separating the insoluble extraction product and the soluble extraction product, drying the soluble extraction product to remove all or substantially all of the moisture in the soluble extraction product, and combining the dried soluble extraction product with demineralized bone particles. Studies using the process have shown that the formed osteogenic composition does not have appreciably increased osteoinductive properties when compared to the demineralized bone particles to which the dried soluble extraction product is added. It was further determined that the demineralized bone from which the extraction products are extracted does not exhibit appreciably decreased osteoinductive properties when compared with its properties prior to extraction. It is thus theorized that the extraction process withdraws only a small fraction of available tissue repair factors.
Overall, current bone and cartilage graft formulations have various drawbacks. The osteoinductive factors within the matrices can be rapidly degraded and, thus, factors associated with the matrix are only available to recruit cells to the site of injury for a short time after implantation. Further, in certain instances the current graft formulations exhibit limited capacity to stimulate tissue formation.